In 1 Clement 63:2, the author seems to teach that his epistle was written by divine inspiration:
For you will make us joyful and
happy if you become obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit (ἐὰν
ὑπήκοοι γενόμενοι τοῖς ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν γεγραμμένοις διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος) . . .
Commenting on Rom 6:4, one source wrote the following about water baptism:
Let us know, that the Apostle does
not simply exhort us to imitate Christ, as though he had said that the death of
Christ is a pattern which all Christians are to follow; for no doubt he ascends
higher, as he announces a doctrine, with which he connects, as it is evident,
an exhortation; and his doctrine is this—that the death of Christ is
efficacious to destroy and demolish the depravity of our flesh, and his
resurrection, to effect the renovation of a better nature, and that by
baptism we are admitted into a participation of this grace.
Who would say such a heretical thing? A Catholic theologian?
Lutheran pastor? Irish Latter-day Saint apologist and blogger?
No, it was John Calvin in his commentary on Romans.
The following comes from:
Christiaan Kappes, "Jesus
and His Allegedly Failed End Times Prophecy: The Straightforward Solution to
the Supposedly Insoluble Problem of Jesus’s Parousia (Mark 13:1-37)”
Excursus on Christology for lay
readers: Here “Son of Man” (per the Hebrew) can also be translated “Son of
Adam” (cf. Luke 3:8: “Son of Adam, Son of God”). To be “Son of Man” is not to
be “Son of God.” Rather, Son of Man is from Adam’s seed, but Son of God is
somehow directly from God in heaven. This distinction is a quick point of
departure for noting (in Chalcedonian terms) that the human-seed of Adam does
not know the day nor hour, but the Word of God or Son who is one with the
Father does. In Chalcedonian (AD 451) terms, this is just helping our everyday
reader see that it is ok to admit (as did for example St. Ephrem and St.
Athanasius) that the human nature is per se limited in knowledge and even brain
storage capacity. Whatever Jesus (the combo of Son of God + Son of Man into one
whole item, not two separate persons) in his human brain may have
metaphorically downloaded from the divine icloud connection with the Son (pre-existent
Word of John 1:2-3), he was limited in his download capacity. He was infused in
his human brain at certain times with what was needed for his mission. It can
be interpreted in an orthodox Christology, that the human brain of Jesus need
not have stored all facts about the universe (since the brain is per se
limited), but that a selection of knowledge is stored in the human organ
according to the Son’s purposes. For the part of the Son (Word), the divine
mind in Christ always possesses all knowledge. So, Jesus as one whole possesses
all knowledge but in virtue of his divine mind not in virtue of his human
brain. This distinction was deemed helpful by many readers who will be familiar
with Arius’s objection that Christ’s ignorance means he isn’t allegedly God.
Instead, it merely means that his brain isn’t made out of infinite being, but
material being that is limited like you and me and that it stores whatever
makes Jesus’s human nature, albeit as perfect as possible for his divine
mission and sinlessness even in his pre-resurrectional earthly existence (pp.
6-7)
On Mark 13:26-27 [B1] and 13:32-37 [B2]
B1-B2:
Returning to the Bible text, note that B1 might resolve the
all-knowing Jesus (the personality of the Word) with his ignorant humanity (the
human nature) tension in the way that a Chalcedonian (AD 451) Christian would
also do: When Jesus comes riding the clouds (like the Father himself in the Old
Testament) it is clear that he knows like his Father, even in his humanity, the
day and the hour. As we can suspect, after his death and resurrection, the humanity
of Jesus received infused (viz., downloaded) knowledge of the second coming in
all its detail. Since Mark 13 is before the resurrection, the humanity of Jesus
(and therefore his human speeches and teachings) has nothing to contribute to
the discussion, except to say that it is wise to watch as if it can come
randomly lest the disciples become complacent. (p. 7)
The Pedo-baptists would
fain have this Promise to be a Promise of External Priviledg, and such as gives
Children of Believers a right to Baptism: but that there is no such thing in
the least to be proved from this place, we shall make appear by opening the
Text.
First,
‘Tis evident that Peter preach’d this Sermon to the Jews, and to many of
them who had a hand in murthering the Lord of Life and Glory: And this he laid
home, and prest upon their Consciences very close; and they being prick’d in
their Hearts, cried out, Men and Brethren, what shall we do? If it be thus,
we are lost, Men and undone. No: as if Peter should say, Do not despair
upon your Repentance there is Mercy for you. Then said Peter unto them,
Repent, and be baptized every one of you, for the Remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit . . For the Promise is unto
you. Ay, this is good News indeed they might say; But what will become of
our Children, our Off-spring? for we have wish’d that his Blood might not only
be upon our selves, but also upon our Children. Well, what tho? let not this
terrify you, neither as to drive you into despair; for the Promise is not only
to you who repent, &C. but to your Children, or Off-spring also;
your Posterity shall not be lost, for the Promise is unto them as it is to you,
viz. if they repent; and not only to them of your Race or Posterity; but
also to all that are afar off, meaning the Gentiles, who were said to
be sometimes afar off. But now if they would know who of their Children,
and those who were afar off, the Promise was made unto: In the close of the
Verse, he resolves them in these words, Even to as many as the Lord our God
shall call.
The Promise therefore here evident
is that of the Spirit, and all the Divine Graces and Blessings of it, which was
promised the first tendered unto the Jews and their Off-spring upon
unfeigned Repentance, and turning to God; or being effectually called and
brought over, to close in with the Tenders of Mercy; and then to the Gentiles,
who in like manner should be wrought upon, or effectually called: This Promise
was not made to their Children, as Believers Seed, nor to them, or any other,
uncalled by the Lord, but with this express Proviso, Even so many as the
Lord our God shall call. Which Calling, or effectual work of Grace upon
their Souls, made them capable Subjects of Baptism: Nor are the words, to
you and your Children, mentioned as an acknowledgement of a Priviledg to
them above others, being Abraham’s Seed according to the flesh, but by
reason doubtless of their Wish, Mat. 27.25. His Blood be on us, and on our
Children.
Nor is there the least intimation
given of a right to Baptism to them, or their Children, as the Children of
Believers, but as an Exhortation to them and theirs, to repent, and be
baptized, as their Duty, for their Benefit and Soul-advantage, the Promise
being not mentioned; as though of it self it gave a title to Baptism, either to
them or their Off-spring, without Repentance. But as a Motive, why both they
and their Children should actually repent, and be baptized, i.e. because
in so doing, the would be in the way of obtaining Remission of Sin, and receive
the Holy Spirit, the two grand Branches of the Promise here mentioned. Which
Duty of Repentance little Children being not capable of performing, are not
therefore according to this direction of the Apostle the proper Subjects of
such an Ordinance.
By Children, here faith a Learned
Man, is not meant their Infants, but the Posterity of the Jews: And so
Dr. Hammond grants it, and therefore confesseth this place a very
unconcluding Argument for Infant-Baptism.
And, says he, though by Children
be here meant the Posterity of the Jews, yet not the natural or canal
Seed neither, but the Spiritual; as appears by the last words in the verse,
viz. Even to as many as the Lord our God shall call.
So that it is very evident, that
this Text is grossly abused, by such as infer from hence a title to Baptism,
for Children of Believers, by virtue of a Promise to them as such; whereas it
is manifest from the whole scope of the Context, that it is only an
incouragement to the Jews against Dispair, by reason of their crucifying
the Son of God, letting them know that yet there was hope of Mercy and Pardon
for them and their Children, upon the respective Repentance of both, or either
of them. (Benjamin Keach, Gold Refined, or, Baptism in its Primitive Purity:
Proving baptism in water an holy institution of Jesus Christ, and to continue
in the church to the end of the world [London: Nathaniel Crouch, 1689], 134-37)
Baptism, which now saves us by
Water, that is, by the assistance of Water, and it Antitypical to the Ark of Noah,
does not signifie the laying down the Filth of the Flesh in the Water, but the
Covenant of a good Conscience towards God, while we are plung’d in the Water,
which is the true use of Water in Baptism, thereby to testify our Belief in the
Resurrection of Jesus Christ; so that there is a manifest Antithesis
between these words by Water, and by resurrection; Nor is the
Elegancy of it displeasing. As if he should say, the Ark of Noah, not
the Flood, was a Type of Baptism, and Baptism was an Antitype of the Ark, not
as Baptism is a washing away the Filth of the Flesh by Water, wherein it
answers not at all to the Ark, but as it is the Covenant of a good Conscience
towards God by the Resurrection of Christ, in the Belief of which Resurrection
of Christ, in the Belief of which Resurrection we are saved, as they were saved
by the Ark of Naah: For the Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure
of the Resurrection; so that the proper end of Baptism ought not to be
understood as if it were a sign of the washing away of sin, altho it be thus
oftentimes taken metonymically in the New Testament, and by the fathers, but a
particular signal of the Resurrection by Faith in the Resurrection of Christ,
of which Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure, as also was the Ark of
which Noah returned as from the Sepulcher to a new Life, and therefore
not unaptly called by Philo, the Captain of the new creature: And the
Whales Belly out of which Jesus, after a burial of three days, was set a
liberty . . . (Benjamin Keach, Gold Refined, or, Baptism in its Primitive
Purity: Proving baptism in water an holy institution of Jesus Christ, and to
continue in the church to the end of the world [London: Nathaniel Crouch,
1689], 47)
The Colloquy of Marburg
demonstrated how Protestants early in the Reformation struggled to define the function
of the church’s ancient tradition in their debates over the Lord’s Supper.
Considering the church fathers as mostly faithful interpreters, the early
reformers deemed the fathers valuable to biblical interpretation and therefore
considered them as exegetical comrades. Even when the fathers seemed to be
liabilities, they were somehow construed as positive examples, and the early
Protestant reformers usually cited them as allies to bolster their own views
and simultaneously challenge other doctrines. (Esther Chung-Kim, Inventing
Authority: The use of the Church Fathers in Reformation Debates over the
Eucharist [Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2011], 32)
Commenting on the 1539 edition of the Institutes
. . . Calvin does not see the
church fathers as infallible. His willingness to criticize and “correct” the
ancient writers is apparent from an early stage. He writes: “I observe that the
ancient writers also misinterpreted this memorial in a way not consonant with
the Lord’s institution, because their Supper displayed some appearance of repeated
or at least renewed sacrifice. . . Not content with the simple and genuine
institution of Christ, they have turned aside too much to the shadows of the
law” (CO 1:1034). Calvin portrayed their mistakes as tendencies toward
one extreme or another. While Calvin wants to uphold the fathers’ piety, he
judges that they have misunderstood the Eucharist in their descriptions of renewed
sacrifice. Nevertheless, in the same year, in his Reply to Sadoleto (1539),
Calvin argues that the Protestant churches are faithful adherents to the early
church tradition. (Ibid., 38)
Use of the Fathers in the Debate
over the Lord’s Supper
Both collocutors claimed that the
Word of God to be the sole norm—the declared principle of Scripture alone (sola
scriptura). Beza, for example, believed that his use of a trope to
understand how Christ was present in the elements of bread and wine suggested
that the concept belonged to Scripture (not to the originality of the Reformed
theologians), and he further testified to its antiquity by quoting Virgil and Homer.
The emphasis on the principle of sola scriptura did not diminish the use
of the church fathers throughout the sixteenth century; rather, it did just the
opposite. In the search for the “correct” interpretation of Scripture, the
fathers had a pivotal role in intra-Protestant tensions. The Reformation’s
insistence on sola scriptura in no way excluded a reformer’s endeavor to
prove connections to the fathers; in fact, the polemical context encouraged the
recognition of other authorities. The intra-Protestant debates over the
Eucharist provided the impetus for further study of the church fathers.
Although the fathers were initially recalled for support, when the words of an
ancient father challenged a reformer’s view, even the fathers had to be
reinterpreted to fit the shape of Lutheran or Reformed views. There is no doubt
that the ancient fathers played an integral role in the sixteenth-century
debates over the Eucharist. In those cases, however, the fathers failed to gain
any absolute power, and their saying did not cause many reformers to change
their views in light of ancient evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, the
reformer’s new interpretations of the fathers because normative for each respective
confessional tradition, both Lutheran and Reformed.
By 1586 the major confessions had
been ratified. The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) had been adopted by
the Swiss and also by the French La Rochelle (1571) in harmony with their own French
Confession of 1559. The Lutheran Formula of Concord was first
published in 1576, with subsequent editions following closely. Each church considered
its confession to be the correct interpretation of the Word of God, drawn from
Scripture. Although these reformers would not admit that any of the confessions
had the unique authority of Scripture itself, they in fact believed that their
confession statements stood as the standard for deciding “orthodox” doctrine.
Furthermore, it became clear that each of these confessions was meant to define
a religious identity based on an interpretation of Scripture that would be
distinct from other interpretations.
At the Colloquy of Montbéliard,
Andreae and his followers presented two groups of theses. The first group of Württemberg
theses listed points on which the Lutherans judged there was no controversy.
The second set considered controversial topics and included Reformed ideas that
the Lutherans considered contrary to Scripture. Bezas’ response did not follow
the order of questions or topics in Andreae’s work, but rather a sequence of arguments
already formulated in his own Confessio fidei and his theses at the
Colloquy of Poissy. These arguments were repeated in his 1593 De
Controversiis in Coena Domini, and thereby established a blueprint for the
Reformed understanding of the Eucharist. (Ibid., 127-28)
Since the debate on the Lord’s
Supper brings Christ’s presence under scrutiny, the discussion consequently
leads to a debate over the person of Christ. . . . a few points as they related
to the use of the fathers will be highlighted. In both Andreae’s Acts and
Beza’s Responsio, there are extended references to early christological
heresies, particularly to the doctrine of Nestorius. Beza and Andreae accuse
each other of repeating Nestorius’ error, and each interprets the Council of
Chalcedon as a historical basis for his own Christology. Beza claims that
Nestorius would not have made the mistake he did, had he been able to discern
the difference between abstract and concrete terms (Raitt, Colloquy of
Montbéliard, 125). Beza explains that Nestorius, a man both subtle and
gifted from natural eloquence, neither took away the reality of the Son of God
with Paul of Samosata, or the distinction of persons with Sabellius and Photinus,
not denied the truth of human nature. On the contrary, Nestorius was not ignorant
the two natures in Christ but was misrepresented, as John of Damascus testifies
(Beza, Responsio, 94). According to Beza, it was Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius’
bitter adversary, who argued (at the Council of Ephesus) against the assertion
that two natures also established two persons. From Epistle 2 of Nestorius
to Cyril, Beza cites that Nestorius indeed believed in two natures, but that he
did not confess the hypostatic union, only conjunction (Beza, Responsio,
94). Beza tries to show that Andreae does not even correctly understand the
early church figures of the christological controversy in order to show that
Andreae’s use of the fathers is based on a misunderstanding of them. Again the
errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, Beza teaches that, just as there are two
natures, so there are two essential properties, two wills, and two operations
tending to one common and final effect that is attributed to one single person,
because Jesus Christ is but one being subsisting in two natures. Beza writes
that, whether Nestorius thought that the word was truly made flesh or that it
constituted just as many persons as are in Christ’s nature, neither is enough to
excuse Andreae’s claim that the word does not separate from the flesh of
Christ. Beza sees this point as a theological stumbling block, since misunderstanding
the two distinct natures of Christ leads people astray from orthodox views. He
praises Cyril for opening people’s eyes to Christ, who “is not God-bearer but
God-man” (Beza, Responsio, 95).
Reminiscent of Calvin’s previous
writings against Westphal and Hesshusen, Beza wants to make sure that Cyril is
depicted as a supporter of the Reformed view. According to Beza, he himself has
already cited Andreae’s additional explanation from Cyril and other places of
Andreae’s writings for many years (Beza, Responsio, 177). Beza reiterates
his belief in the real substance of Christ’s humanity, and upholds it in the administration
of the sacrament, especially in the Lord’s Supper. He then asserts that these
are “not our words but [the words] of all the orthodox antiquity,” and cites
the sayings of Augustine, Cyril, Vigilius, and Fulgentius in support of his
claim (Beza, Responsio, 181). (Esther Chung-Kim, Inventing Authority:
The use of the Church Fathers in Reformation Debates over the Eucharist [Waco,
Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2011], 137-38)
Beza is basically arguing that,
just as there must be no separation against Nestorius, there must be also a distinction
against the error of Eutyches and the followers of Brenz. Beza summarizes that
the common effect of the diversity of the two natures—especially in the work of
human redemption—is done so that the humanity is not a mediator of salvation without
the divinity, nor does the divinity redeem without the humanity (Beza, Responsio,
128). (Ibid., 178 n. 89)
Around the third century, Cyprian
spoke of “representation” to describe the metaphorical meaning for the
Christian eucharistic celebration as the sacrifice of Jesus, not of animals or
food. Other ancient Christian writers, such as Origen, pointed out that the
reception of the Lord’s body and blood was a purely spiritual affair. At the
same time, early Christians were also worried about the growing gnostic groups
that valued spiritual things and denounced all material substances. Against the
Gnostics who denied the value of the Lord’s Supper. Irenaeus, for example, used
strong “realistic” language. Subsequent controversies within the early church prompted
other emphases of the Lord’s Supper to arise. Conflicts with the Manichees,
Donatists, and Pelagians shaped the teachings of Augustine, who addressed some
aspects of the Eucharist in his conflict with the Donatists. For Augustine, the
sacraments did not rely on the purity of the priest but were defined as
belonging to and given by Christ. In the “Nestorian” controversy in the fifth
century, Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, wished to demonstrate the unity of the
divine and human natures of Christ against Nestorius, patriarch of
Constantinople. In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Cyril insisted that
the body of Christ was so inseparably linked to the second person of the
Trinity that, through contact with Christ’s body in the Eucharist, believers
shared in divine immortality. For Cyril, the sharing of immortality could only
happen if there was an insoluble union between the human and divine natures in
Jesus Christ. Responding to controversies in their time, the church fathers
often discussed the Eucharist to address particular issues concerning
Christology (e.g., the humanity and divinity of Christ) and ecclesiology (e.g.,
the efficacy of the sacraments). (Esther Chung-Kim, Inventing Authority: The
use of the Church Fathers in Reformation Debates over the Eucharist [Waco,
Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2011], 159-60 n. 64)
Despite his rejection of a
sacramental meaning for this passage, one cannot deny that Calvin’s exegesis of
John 6 has eucharistic overtones. In fact, in explaining verse 55, Calvin says,
“For when Christ expressly mentions food and drink, Christ declares that the
life which he bestows is complete in every respect . . . provided that we eat
his flesh and drink his blood. Thus also in the Lord’s Supper, which
corresponds to this doctrine, not satisfied with the symbol of the bread,
he adds also the cup” (CO 25:155). Finding it hard to resist the
connections o the Eucharist, he explains that the doctrine that is taught in
this passage is sealed in the Lord’s Supper (CO 25:156). It is noteworthy
that, immediately after his rejection of an eucharistic interpretation of the
passage in John 6, Calvin writes, “At the same time, I confess that there is
nothing said here that is not figured and actually presented to believers in
the Lord’s Supper” (CO 25:155). By the time of the Institutio in
1559, Calvin explicitly relates John 6 with the Lord’s supper. (Esther
Chung-Kim, Inventing Authority: The use of the Church Fathers in Reformation
Debates over the Eucharist [Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2011], 52)
When Paul says in I Cor. i. 29
that the boasting of all flesh is excluded before God, ‘all flesh’ is
interpreted by Theodore as ‘every fleshy man with his mind set on fleshly
things’ (πας ανθρωπος σαρκικος επι σαρκικοις εχων το φρονημα) (Theod. on I Cor. i. 29; cf.
Ambst. In loc. [191 C]). In similar vein the words of I Cor. xv. 50 that
‘flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God’ are regularly
interpreted in a moral sense. This particular exegesis . . . was supported with
careful and detailed reasoning and was of fundamental importance to the understanding
of Paul’s resurrection doctrine (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5, 14, 4;
Tertullian, De Ros. Mort. 51, 5; Adv. Marc. 5, 10, 11; ibid.
5, 14, 4; Novatian, De Trinitate, 10; Chr. Hom. in I Cor. 42, 1
[10, 364]; Ambst. In loc. [270 B]; Pelagius in loc; Isidore, Epp.
1, 477).This insistence on the moral significance of the term ‘flesh’ in Paul’s
writings is undoubtedly a true and important insight. But it seems clear from
some of the examples just given that if it is applied too automatically and too
uniformly to every occurrence of the word in his letters it can give rise to
serious misinterpretation of his meaning many cases. (M. F. Wiles, The
Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church [Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1967], 29)
In the first instance the words
are defined to mean that flesh and blood by themselves, apart from the Spirit,
cannot enter the kingdom of God (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5, 9, 1-3).
Secondly, flesh and blood are defined as not bearing their straightforward meaning
but as implying the works of the flesh, and Gal. v. 19-21 is cited in evidence
(Ibid. 5, 11, 1; 5, 14, 4). These two lines of argument may be said to
be brought together in the declaration already quoted that Paul’s meaning is
that if you live as if you were flesh and blood and nothing more you cannot
inherit the kingdom of God (Ibid. 5, 9, 4. This shows the way in which
Irenaeus relates the two primary Pauline senses of flesh without implying any
derogation of the physical creation as such). Thirdly, though he clearly lays
much less emphasis on this line of argument, it would be incorrect in any sense
to speak of flesh and blood inheriting the kingdom; the relationship is the
other way round; it is they that are inherited (Ibid. Cf. Methodius on I
Cor. xv. 50; De Res. 2, 18, 9, where the interpretation is attributed to
Justin). (Ibid., 44)
In his journal, George D. Watt recorded Orson Pratt discussing Eucharistic theology:
Sunday February 9th 1851.
The saints on board of the Ellen Maria
met on the poop deck to celebrate the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper for the first
time since sailing from Liverpool. . . . Elder Pratt spoke to the people. The
following is a summary of his remarks. . . . It is the privilege of all those
who have been baptized to take the Lord’s Supper. Have no the convenience here
as in other circumstances. Yet he says it matters not what we eat or what we
drink, but are to do these things to show we are willing to be subject to him
and obedient to him in all things. (Liverpool to Great Lake City: The 1851
Journal of Missionary George D. Watt, ed. LaJean Purcell Carruth and Ronald
G. Watt [Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska Press, 2022], 9, 10)
Orson Pratt, in a sermon dated March 2, 1851, delivered on board
the Ellen Maria and recorded by George D. Watt said the following about
Moses’ appeasing God’s wrath in Exo 32-33 and, as a result, God changing His
mind:
The Lord continued on the mount.
But in the presence of all this power and glory, the children of Israel
gathered together their ear rings, and other jewels, and gold, and melted it
together and fashioned it in [the] manner of [a] calf, after [which] they fell
down and worshiped it, and said: This be thy gods, O Israel, that brought thee
up [out of the] land of Egypt. There [was] the glory of God upon the mount,
they could behold it, and yet in the face and eyes of this, they fell down and
worshiped a golden calf, and called it their god. Now, if the Lord had not been
a long suffering Being, what [would he have] done on that occasion? Why, his
anger [would have] waxed hot, [and they] would have [been] swept off, the whole
of them, that fell unto this idolatry. [He is a] jealous God; when he sees the
people worship [an]other being, [he] feels angry with them. He was angry with ‘em,
and intended to destroy them: Let me alone, [that I] may destroy them. [He]
said to Moses [that] he would spare him, and raise up of his seed a great
nation [that] would serve [him]. He did not like to have it, so he pled with
the Lord that he would not suffer his anger to burn against his people, [that
he would] remember them for his covenant sake. The Lord was entreated by Moses,
although he sent upon them a severe affection, because of their idolatry. (Liverpool
to Great Lake City: The 1851 Journal of Missionary George D. Watt, ed.
LaJean Purcell Carruth and Ronald G. Watt [Lincoln, Nebr.: University of
Nebraska Press, 2022], 131-32)
Elsewhere in this sermon, commenting on D&C 103:16 (“Therefore,
I will raise up unto my people a man, who shall lead them like as Moses led the
children of Israel”), Orson expects another prophetic figure who will mediate
for God’s people in a way similar to Moses on Exo 32-33:
[Even] if we are ever so pure, we
do not know: in time to come, we may be placed in circumstances somewhat similar
[to] that children [of] Israel were. We have reason to expect this, because the
Lord has revealed this to us in revelations given through the Prophet Joseph,
[in the] Book [of] Covenants, that he intended to lead this people as he led
them in ancient times. He says, in [a] revelation given in 1834: I will raise
up a Moses, and that he would deliver his church in the last days from bondage
and oppression, as he delivered his people in ancient times. The Lord did not
say that Joseph Smith was [the] one he speaks of. One in future: I will raise
up one like a Moses etc. Would this be one not known to us, when it will indeed
come to pass? When it does, let us all be prepared to remember what took place
when the Lord redeemed Israel in ancient times, by meditating while in our afflictions,
or any circumstances whatever, that when the day shall come, we may not fall as
they fell in ancient times. (Ibid., 133-34)
Orson Pratt, in a sermon dated March 9, 1851, delivered on board the Ellen Maria and recorded by George D. Watt said the following about resurrected bodies not having blood, but instead, being “spiritual” (to borrow from 1 Cor 15:44):
When you come up from your graves
[you will] have no blood, [for] blood if natural life. As to immortality, what
[will] supply the place of blood, which is necessary now, to sustain the
natural life? If it were not for the blood that circulated in the veins, our
bodies could not survive. But the very thing that preserves us in life for a
few years here is very thing that tends eventually to death: blood tends to
mortality, to change the system, to bring disease, and death, and sickness, and
pain, and sorrow. What [will] supply the place of this? Ezekiel has told us, in
the 37 chapter, he had a view of resurrection. He says [that] the hand of the Lord
was upon him, and carried him out in the spirit, [and] set him down in the
midst of valley full of bones. The Lord asked him a very curious question: son
of man, can these bones live? Well, to all natural appearance, if he had been a
person not having faith in God, he would have said, No, [they are] dry [bones].
[He was] ignorant upon the subject. Hence, he says: O Lord God, thou knowest.
Then says the Lord: Prophesy, son of man; say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear
the word of the Lord, Thus saith the Lord, and he prophesied, and as he
prophesied, there was a noise, and shaking bones came to itself, bone. Flesh,
and sinews came upon [them] and skin covered them above, [but there was] no breath
in them. Then the lord told Ezekiel to prophecy again to the winds. So he
prophesied, and breath entered into them. And here, then is life: they lived,
[and] stood upon their, feet an exceeding great array. . . .The Lord, in order
to explain this greater matter to them, says: O my people, I will open your
graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you to the land
of Israel, bone to bone, skin cover [flesh and sinews]. [In all/Know of?] this
the immortal spirit [will be] enabled, [and] after he rises up in that manner,
they are brought unto the land of Israel. (Liverpool to Great Lake City: The
1851 Journal of Missionary George D. Watt, ed. LaJean Purcell Carruth and
Ronald G. Watt [Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska Press, 2022], 149, 150)
Orson Pratt, in a sermon dated February 16, 1851, delivered on board the Ellen Maria and recorded by George D. Watt, said the following about those who shed “innocent blood” and the Jews who assented to the murder of Jesus:
There is a certain class of
creatures that I will now mention, that are out of the church, that have no
right to come into the church, the Lord would not receive them into his church.
It is those that commit murder and shed innocent blood, against law and
testimony, and [when?] wickedly and maliciously do it. As [an] example of this
transgression, we may refer you to the murderers of Jesus Christ. They have no
right to come into the church of God, [or] to be baptized it. It was instituted
for the remission of sins. Those wicked murderers could not have their sins
remitted, [or] anything to do with baptism, as Peter said when he preached to
them in the 3 or 4 chapter of Acts. He exhorts them in this manner: Repent ye
therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when in the
times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall send
Jesus Christ. What? Are we to wait until he sends Jesus Christ, before our sins
can be blotted out? Yes, that is the language of Peter to those murderers:
repent and be converted, that your sins may be be [sic] blotted out,
when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he
shall send Jesus Christ. IT seems [that] they had to wait a long period before
their sins could be blotted out. <Says one>, [what[ would be the use of
their repentance? It would be this: [to] get their sins blotted out when he
send[s] Jesus Christ. If they did not repent and be converted, [they] could not
be forgiven; [they would have to] wait a longer period. I thought conversion
when a man was converted and [his] sins was forgiveness (Written: forgiveness;
apparent intend: forgiven). Forgiveness is one thing, and conversion
another thing. Those person were not to be forgiven, but to be converted.
Whatsoever they had done that was evil, if he would repent, [he would]
be forgiven when Jesus Christ came, if they had not, [repented, they would have
to] wait 3 or 4 thousand years, until after the thousand years ended. (Liverpool
to Great Lake City: The 1851 Journal of Missionary George D. Watt, ed.
LaJean Purcell Carruth and Ronald G. Watt [Lincoln, Nebr.: University of
Nebraska Press, 2022], 125-26)
Orson Pratt, in a sermon dated February 16, 1851, delivered on board the Ellen Maria and recorded by George D. Watt said the following about King David, the sin against the Holy Ghost, and the “sealing principle, being sealed upon unto the day of redemption” (cf. D&C 132:26):
There are certain sins which are
called the sins against the Holy Ghost, and there are other sins that are not
sins against the Holy Ghost. Well now, supposing a person does not not [sic]
repent, who has not sinned against the Holy Ghost, [but rather] continues to
commit sins, and does this through the weakness of his nature, and will not repent.
They will have to be punished in the eternal world, in the same manner as they
who sin against the Holy Ghost. I might mention, for instance, David. We all
know the great transgression into which he fell. He was a man who possessed
light and knowledge. He understood the commandments of God. The Holy Spirit had
been imparted to him, He had been filled with the spirit of prophecy, and yet,
in the face, the eyes of all this, he fell through a temptation. It is was not
done maliciously. [He] fell through a temptation that did not expose him to the
unpardonable sin, but he placed himself in a condition [that] he could not be
forgiven in this life. No, for he not only committed adultery, but [he] also
placed Uriah in a situation to be murdered. This placed David in a condition
[that he] could not receive a forgiveness of that sin in this world; he had to
be punished in the eternal worlds for that transgression. [We read in] 2 Acts a
quotation concerning David: Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither suffer
thy Holy One to see corruption. He assumes, then, that David’s soul was to be
cast down to hell, but saw that he would eventually be redeemed from hell, but
saw that he would eventually be redeemed from hell. But if he had sinned
against the Holy Ghost, there could not have been any redemption from for committing [that sin]. [The]
Apostle Peter says that Peter [Written: Peter; obvious intent: David]
had not ascended unto heaven; his spirit had been separated from his body [for]
more than a thousand years. Where was he all this time? He was suffering the
penalty of his transgression. I want the Latter-day Saints to understand this:
there are some sins, [that] if we do them, we [may may?] have to humble
ourselves before the Lord, ever so much, in the eternal worlds. We have to be
punished for those sins.
Says one, [do] you believe in
redemption for man in an iniquity? Yes. The Lord is a being that constructs his
plan upon a remarkably magnanimous principle. His plans extends into all worlds
and into all eternity. But there are certain creatures that the plan of redemption
never can reach: the devil and his angels, and those that become his son by
sinning against the Holy Ghost. Redemption never can reach these creatures
throughout all the ages of eternity. But others, like with David, after they
have been punished in the eternal world sufficiently long, redemption will
reach them. Their souls will not be left in hell.
Another instance besides David,
[but] before I refer to this, I will make a few remarks upon a certain
principle that perhaps some of the Saints be ignorant of. The sealing
principle, being sealed upon unto the day of redemption. It is not every one
that attains [to] this principle. There is a certain way, and a certain
ordinance, and a certain authority that is necessary to be exercised by the restoration
of the priesthood, that this may be secured unto men. In ancient times, some of
the people of God attained this. The Corinthians and Ephesians had rendered
themselves proved in the sight of God. They had kept his commandments [and]
walked in obedience to his ordinances. They had attained to the sealing power
of the holy priesthood, [which] had been placed upon their head by proper authority.
Now, after a person has obtained this power, suppose they fall into
transgression? After that, what [are] the consequences? They must be punished
for it. Can you bring any example? Certain[ly; there is a] case in the Corinthian
church. That church had obtained this seal, and after it had been placed upon
[them], some of them fell into a gross transgression: they committed
fornication. Paul writes an epistle to them: what [did he] say about that
person? Did he say that such a person, if he repented, should obtain
forgiveness? No, he says in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, when you are
gathered together, and my Spirit, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, [that the] spirit [may be] saved in the day of the
Lord Jesus. [This is a] curious kind of doctrine. He had not much charity,
according to the ideas of this generation. He knew that, after the sealing
power was upon his head, after having been sealed, [there was] no forgiveness
for him in this life. [He] exhorted that such a one be delivered to Satan etc.
What [would] become of the spirit? Until the day of the Lord Jesus, [it would] be
in torment in [the] flesh. The devil [would] have power over him in this life,
but at the same time to have power over his spirit when that day come, the day
even spoken of by the prophet, a thousand years of rest, the day of the Lord.
One day with the Lord is as a thousand [with man]. It is the seven[th] thousand
years, the millennium period. When that day comes, the Corinthians that had
been delivered over to Satan, their spirits [will] all [be] upon [them and they
will] be saved in that day.
This ought to be a warning to the
Latter-day Saints, lest they fall into these great sins. There is a
responsibility placed upon [them] to be more strictly upright, honest, [and]
obedient to the commandments of God than any other people upon the face of the
whole earth. Suppose [that] after we have obtained some of the blessings of the
everlasting covenant, which you will yet have to receive, for that is the
object of the Lord [in] gather[ing] his people together, which they never could
receive scattered abroad through the nations, blessings that pertain to the
last dispensation of [the] fullness of times, and ordinances that are to be
revealed, in order to prepare a people for the day of the Lord, for the millennium
period of glory and peace. When you become acquainted with these ordinances, if
you should then turn away from righteousness and commit fornication, or any of those
enormous sins, the Lord will deal with you very differently than he would with
mankind [in general] for the same sins, after so much information and light has
been given to the saints of the Most High. (Liverpool to Great Lake City:
The 1851 Journal of Missionary George D. Watt, ed. LaJean Purcell Carruth
and Ronald G. Watt [Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska Press, 2022], 122-25)
Orson Pratt, in a sermon dated February 16, 1851, delivered on board the Ellen Maria and recorded by George D. Watt said the following about the necessity of continuing public revelation and its relationship to ecclesiology:
And if it were not for the spirit
of revelation, the church of God could have no existence upon the face of the
earth. It can only be continued by this principle, and when the principle of
revelation ceases from among men, then the church of Christ ceases from among
men. When the prophets, and revelators, and inspired men cease from the earth,
the [church?] of God ceases from the earth. According to this provision, there
has been no church of God in existence on the earth for many centuries. This is
the real belief of the Latter-day Saints. We believe that the church of God has
been extinct from the earth for many generations, and we believe that it has
ceased with the spirit of revelation, for surely there is no way by which we
can distinguish the church of God from the churches built up by man, through
his own wisdom, only by the principle. The Bible, any way, gives us no
information of a people called the people of God, unless [there are] prophets
and revelators among them.
We might begin away back, to the
very beginning of man, and trace the history of man and the history of the
dealings of God with man, down for 4 thousand years and upwards, and during the
whole of that period of time, we find [that when] God had a people upon earth,
he spoke with them, [sent] angels to them, unfolded the visions of eternity to
them, [and] had prophets and revelators speak by the inspiration of his Spirit
among [them]. But for about 17 hundred years past, the people opined the Great
Mover has concluded [his work, and the] gate is charged. They do not say it
directly [but] indirectly, by telling the people [that] God has Christian
churches on earth, and at same time tell the people those Christian churches
have no visions, no revelations, any prophets unknown. All these these
occur[ed] to the people 18 hundred years ago. What right have we to believe
such nonsense, to think, if we will think, the churches of God will have no
accordance with the Bible, not agreed with the Bible, no importance for them to
be the church of God. (Liverpool to Great Lake City: The 1851 Journal of
Missionary George D. Watt, ed. LaJean Purcell Carruth and Ronald G. Watt [Lincoln,
Nebr.: University of Nebraska Press, 2022], 119-20)
In a revelation from 1830, now canonized as section 74 of the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith received an inspired interpretation of 1 Cor 7:14:
For the unbelieving husband is
sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband;
else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. Now, in the days of the
apostles the law of circumcision was had among all the Jews who believed not
the gospel of Jesus Christ. And it came to pass that there arose a great
contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision, for the
unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and
become subject to the law of Moses, which law was fulfilled. And it came to
pass that the children, being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses,
gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of
Christ, wherein they became unholy. Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote
unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of
himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law
of Moses should be done away among them, that their children might remain without
circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that
little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews; But little children
are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is
what the scriptures mean
This is a text whose meaning has been debated for centuries, including both the patristic and Reformation eras, such as whether it is support of infant baptism. Here are some excerpts of works I have recently read on this passage that others might find interesting, too:
David F. Wright on the Reception of this Text among the Reformers
Texts
and Translation
Before proceeding to review a
selection of Reformation expositions of 1 Corinthians 7.14, we should look
briefly at the text itself and some of its sixteenth-century translations. In
later medieval works the Vulgate most commonly reads as follows:
sanctificatus est enim vir
infidelis per mulierem fidelem, et sanctificata est mulier infidelis per virum
fidelem; alioquin filii vestri immundi essent, nunc autem sancti sunt.
The clarifying addition of fidelem,
twice (there is a little early support for this), is of no moment, since the
meaning in each case is not in doubt. (Wolfgang Musculus is the only
commentator who thinks otherwise, as we shall see.) Much more significant is
the adoption of per mulierem/virum where the Greek has εν τη γυναικι etc. The
version unquestionably undergirds what is probably the dominant interpretation
during the pre-Reformation era as a whole, which focuses on the influence of
the Reformation era as a whole, which focuses on the influence of the believing
partner on the unbelieving, whose conversion is contemplated with varying
degrees of confidence.
Also noteworthy in the Vulgate is
the variation in the last part of the verse between essent and sunt
(the Greek has εστιν in both places). This variation predates
the Vulgate being found in Augustine and Ambrosiaster, for example. In the
latter the reading essent clearly facilitates, if it does not require,
and interpretation which would exercise long-lasting influence:
immundi essent filii eorum, si
dimitterent volentes habitare secum et aliis se copularent, essent enim
adulteri ac per hoc et filii eorum spurii, ideo immundi. (H. J. Vogels [ed.], Commentarius
in Epistulas Paulinas, vol. II [CSEL, 81], p. 76 of loc.)
Alioquin
as understood by Ambrosiaster denotes not, more immediately, the unbelieving partner
remaining unsanctified, but the separation of the partners (partly, no doubt,
as a consequence of this). That is to say, this exegesis of the last sentence
of verse 14 has reference not so much, or not chiefly, to the earlier part of
the verse as to verses 12-13. Ambrosiaster’s interpretation is clearly recognizable
in the Glossa Ordinaria ad loc., and in Gratians’ Decretum is
ascribed to scripture itself.
Finally, in the Vulgate’s text, mundi
is a not infrequent variant for sancti, being found, for example, in the
Glossa. I also note, without being able to comment further, that the
only change made in Wittenberg’s corrected Vulgate of 1529 (apart from the
inconsequential dropping of fidelem) was sanctifactur (twice) for
sanctifactus/a est.
Erasmus’ treatment of this verse
is intriguing. His new translation of 1516 was as follows:
Sanctifactus est enim maritus
infidelis, in uxore, et sanctifacta est uxor infidelis, in
marito, Alioqui filii vestri inmundi sunt, nunc autem sancti sunt.
The changes are italicised. But
from the second edition of 1519 onwards. Erasmus backtracked, reinstating per
uxorem/maritum and essent. The only new element was incredulous/a
for infidelis. Correspondingly, from 1519 his Annotationes,
although retaining form 1516 a direct translation of the two Greek phrases—i.e.,
in muliere, in viro—added an endorsement of the Vulgate which
reflected his change of mind:
Atque hoc sane loco recte mutavit
interpres praepositionem, quod tamen alias aut veretur aut negligit facere.
Furthermore, the vernacular
translation largely reflected Erasmus’ second throughts rather than his first.
All the English versions I have examined down to the King James Version of 1611
, have ‘by’, and the French of Olivétan-Calvin likewise renders it ‘par’.
Similarly, Luther in 1522 and still in 1546 has ‘durch(s)’. In addition, these
various vernacular translations all reflect essent/sunt rather than the
Greek’s εστιν/εστιν. So much for the recovery of the original
languages! (David F. Wright, “1 Corinthians 7.14 in Fathers and Reformers,” in Infant
Baptism in Historical Perspective: Collected Studies [Studies in Christian
History and Thought; Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2007], 195-97)
Sanctification
as Converting Influence
One interpretation of the first
part of 1 Corinthians 7.14 is shared by virtually all the patristic authorities
whose influence was felt in the sixteenth century. This view interprets the
sanctification that is wrought in or through the Christian wife or husband as
an influence that makes for the other partners’ conversion. As we have noted,
Augustine is careful to respect the tense of the Greek ηγιασται, referring to instances that had
presumably already occurred. Pelagius, citing 1 Peter 3.1, likewise says that ‘it
has often happened that a husband was won (lucre fieret) through his
wife’. This is preserved in both Pseudo-Primasius (PL 68, cols. 521-22)
(The Cassiodoran expurgated Pelagius), where it precedes the similar sentiment
from Augustine’s De Sermone Domini in Monte, and Pseudo-Jerome (the
interpolated Pelagius) (PL 30, cols. 736-37). John Chrysostom’s homily
uses the present tense throughout: ‘the purity of the believing husband overcomes
the impurity of the unbelieving wife . . . Hence there is hope that the lsot
partner may be saved through the marriage . . . What harm is there, tell me,
both wne the requirements of piety remain unimpaired and when there are good
hopes about the unbeliever? . . . The wife is to lead her man to desire the
truth’ (PG 61, cols. 154-55).
Ambrosiaster’s comment is more
elusive:
Habere illos [i.e.
the unbelieving partners] beneficium bonae voluntatis ostendit [i.e.
Paul], qua (quia) horrorem nominis Christi non habent, et ad tuitionem
hospitii pertinent, in quo signum fit crucis, quo mors victa est; sanctifacatio
enim est. (CSEL, 81, p. 76)
Some of Ambrosiaster’s wording is
picking up in Erasmus’ Paraphrases, which mediated to the sixteenth
century an influential and attractive expression of this sense of
sanctification. The baptized wife non admiscetur Ethnico, sed obsequitur
marito: nec amat impium, sed tolerat futurum pium. The husabdn who does not
yet profess Christ gives grounds for ‘this hope about himself’, since in
uxore non horret Dei cultum. He is not wholly a pagn, but to some degree
already a Christian, since he compliantly lives with a wife who professes the
name of Christ, and crucis signum communi lectulo praefixum videt aequis
oculis (LB 7, cols. 880-81).
In addition to the evident on
Ambrosiaster, Eramus may here be echoing Chrysostom’s reiterated note of hope,
and even Augustine’s mention of tolerance, although this last element with one
or two others is found in Pseudo-Oecumenius. Btu this interpretation of our
verse became very common in the medieval centuries. It is found, for example,
in Haimo of Auxerre in the ninth century, Bruno of Charteux in the eleventh,
Hervé of Bourgdieu (Pseudo-Anselm) and Peter Lombard in the twelfth century,
Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth, Nicolas of Lyra in the fourteenth, and
Dionysius the Carthusian in the fifteenth. And on the way it lodged in the Glossa
Ordinaria. Here, as often in other commentaries, it is not the only
interpretation offered, he is invariably the first in order.
We will accordingly round off this
view of sixteenth-century Protestant exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7.14 by looking
at some Reformers who consider this interpretation in terms of a converting
influence. Zwingli provides two meanings for sanctifactus est, first
attracted to faith by the demeanour of the Christian wife, and second, reckoned
among the family and people of God, although infidelis. (Zwingli also
notes that in the New Testament, but not the Old, mulier viro aequatur.)
The Zürich Reformer had cited our verse in this first defence of infant baptism
in the letter to Strasbourg of December 1524. Since the children even of one
Christian parent are sancti, that is, fideles, what can prevent
their receiving baptism? For the parnets he prefers the conversion interpretation.
Bullinger follows a different
tack. Correctly discerning the sequence of Paul’s thought (ignotius demonstrate
per notius, nempe per illud quod erat indubitatum apud omnes), he makes the
children’s status as sancti rest upon their being children of promise in
terms of Genesis 17.7, and on their being born of a mixed marriage in which one
partner’s uncleanness is sanctified by the other’s faith. He concedes nothing
more to the unbeliever’s sanctifactus (which he carefully distinguishes
from sanctus) than the neutralizing, as it were, of the impediment of
impiety. He quotes Erasmus’s Paraphrases, unacknowledged, but none of
the Fathers I can recognize.
The Lutheran Erasmus Sarcerius
(1501-59), superintendent and chaplain to Count William of Nassau, weighs up
the sense of sanctificari pro converti, but decides instead that the
apostle uses the word politice . . . , pro servari ab ignominia et
dedecore. Likewise sancti is applied to the children politice,
of their legitimate birth from a legitimate marriage. (Ibid., 205-7)
1
Corinthians 7.14: Holiness, Federal or Real?
With some relief, we turn to some
contested exegesis. In one of his letters from Westminster Robert Baillie wrote
home as follows:
We have ended our Directions for
baptisme. Thomas Goodwin one day was exceedinglie confounded: He has undertaken
a publicke lecture against the Anabaptists: it was said, under pretence of
refuting them, be betrayed our cause to them: that of the Corinthians, our
chief ground for the baptisme of infants, ‘Your children are holy’, he exponed
of a reall holiness, and preached down our ordinare and necessare distinction of
reall and federal holiness. Being posed hereupon, he could no wayes cleare himself,
and no man took his part.
The Directory ended up with the
statement that the children of believers ‘are Christians, and federally holy
before baptism, and therefore are they baptized’. John Lightfoot was unfortunately
absent from the Assembly on 16 July 1644, when the meaning and implications of
1 Corinthians 7.14 were rehearsed at length and in depth. We may judge it one
of the company’s better days. The minutes are ample but not clear at every
point.
Goodwin kept up his end from first
to last.
It is such a holynesse as if they
dy they should be saved/whether a holynesse of election or regeneration I know
not; but I thinke it is they have the holy ghost.
Lazarus Seaman spelt out the alarm
that others showed: ‘all agree that this holynesse is the ground of baptisme .
. . except he can make out this, the baptizing of infants is gone as toutching
his judgment’. Goodwin in effect denied any distinction between real and federal
holiness: the holiness predicated of the children of a single Christian parent
by Paul is the same as that of ‘I will be your God and you shall be my people.
Therefore be holy.’ If 1 Corinthians 7.14 speaks of any other holiness, then
baptism is the seal of some other holiness than the holiness of salvation.
But saving holiness is what
infallibly saed, commented Stephen Marshall anxiously. As Rutherford put it, ‘wher
ther is reall and inherent holynesse ther must be a seeing of god, and being in
the state of salvation’, But ‘the Lord hath election and reprobation amongst
Infants noe lesse than those of age’. This emerged as the main objection to
Goodwin’s interpretation, which was alleged to imply that all such infants
would indubitably be saved (so Marshall) and that the decrees of election and reprobation
could not stand (Rutherford).
So argument ensued on the
difference between an indefinite proposition and a universal proposition.
Goodwin’s case rested on the former: ‘an indefinite faith founded upon an
indefinite promise’. Herbert Palmer could not concur: Paul’s answer to the ‘inconvenience’
to a child form one parent’s infidelity must be ‘a universal proposition and de
fide we are bound to believe it de omnibus et singulis’. To be sure,
Goodwin did not entertain every notion that some divines read into his potion. He
denied that he was speaking of a holiness received by the child by tradition
from the parent, as Richard Vines had supposed (‘and so they shall be borne regenerate
and really holy’), but only of a holiness by way of designation. Calamy came
back at Goodwin: ‘he judges of the reall holynesse of the infant by the reall
holynesse of the parent’. But this is how we all proceed, rejoined Goodwin: it
is the children of believers that we baptize.
The combined learning and piety of
the Westminster theologians did not resolve the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7.14.
The verse had inevitably engaged the attention of previous generations of
expositors, and had found the early Fathers and the Reformers of the sixteenth
century espousing a variety of theories that, if not universally comprehensive,
was at least indefinite. But whereas the earliest exegetes had been especially
preoccupied with avoiding the attribution to the children of a holiness which
they could not comfortably credit also of the unbelieving partner, the dominant
concerns of the divines at Westminster led in other directions. The irony lay
in their vary captivity to this verse in the first instance, for at least one
thing can be incontrovertibly deduced from it—that the children in question who
are declared ‘holy’ had not been baptized, nor, if the parallel with the
unbelieving spouse extends this far, is their imminent baptism implied. This
is, I think, the only place in the New Testament where children are in view of
whom we know for certain whether they have or have not been baptized. They have
not—but are said to be already ‘holy’. (Ibid., 252-54)
David F. Wright (himself a proponent of infant baptism): 1 Cor
7:14 is not a valid “proof-text” for infant baptism:
The most intriguing New Testament
text is 1 Corinthians 7.14, which is popularly viewed as one of the clearer
warrants for infant baptism. The structure of Paul’s reasoning is widely
understood. When Paul asserts ‘Otherwise your children could be unclean, but as
it is, they are holy’ (RSV, NIV), he is not basing the children’s holiness on
their having two holy parents, one a believer and the other sanctified
through the believer. Rather he is adducing the same principle both in what he
says about the unbelieving partner in a mixed marriage and in what he says
about the children of a mixed marriage. The holiness of the believing spouse
covers both the unbelieving partner and their children. Paul is not interested
in on the relation between the children and the unbelieving parent. A parallel
obtains between the unbelieving partner and the children in their relations to
the believing mother/wife or husband/father.
Furthermore Paul’s argument moves
from the children to the unbelieving spouse. The holiness of the children of a
single Christian substantive assertion about this parent’s unbelieving spouse,
an assertion which clearly does not possess the self-evident validity of what
he says about the children.
The next step is to note that the
argument holds water only if the children, like the unbelieving partner, are unbaptized.
It is inconceivable that, if they had been baptized, their holiness should have
been grounded not on the fact of their baptism but on their relationship to a
Christian parent—which it must be if the analogy is to retain its force.
Furthermore, it follows that if the children of a single Christian parent in a
mixed marriage are holy, so a fortiori, on the basis of their Christian parentage.
This exegesis has the broad support of the Fathers, as well as generally of exegetes
today, including both Jeremias and Aland.
It suggests a parallel with Jewish
proselyte baptism, which was given to children born after the
conversion-baptism of their parents(s).
We must not obscure possibly
important distinctions. Paul says nothing directly about baptism, although it
is unquestioned that the unbelieving husband or wife was unbaptized. Exegesis
can establish only that the presupposition (the holiness of the children) of
the main argument (the holiness of the unbelieving spouse) is not grounded in
the children’s baptism. There exists, however, the strongest presumption that
the children had not in fact been baptized. Moreover, Paul is obviously alluding
to a matter of common practice rather than to a specific instance. The verse is
therefore of unique relevance to this enquiry, for no other material in the
New Testament enables us to be so confident that any child or children were or
were not baptized.
Can we deduce anything further—in particular,
whether the children were subsequently baptized, and if so, at what age? The
Greek itself can give us little clue as to their age. Whether, in addition to
being ‘holy’ by birth, they were also baptized, already or subsequently, is an
issue on which Jeremias changed his mind. In the German edition of his first
work, he endorsed that view that, according to the text, the Pauline churches
did not baptize children born to Christian parents. By the time of the English translation
he had ‘begun to doubt the validity of this reasoning’, for it ignored ‘the
important fact that in Judaism all boys, whether their birth was “in holiness”
or not, were circumcised on the eight day’. Since baptism replaced circumcision,
the holiness from birth of the children of 1 Corinthians 7.14 did not preclude
the possibility that they were already baptized. The holiness of the unbelieving
spouse did not make it unnecessary that he or she be subsequently conceived and
baptized. But Jeremias affirms only that ‘the baptism of children on the eighth
day [sic!], in place of circumcision’ is no more excluded by the
verse than is the later baptism of the unbelieving spouse. . . . Aland exposes
the weakness of Jeremias’ argument that Jewish proselyte baptism provides the
background to 1 Corinthians 7.14 when he points to the totally non-Jewish
character of the notion that the unbelieving partner in a marriage may continue
in his or her unbelief and yet be regarded as holy. Jeremias’ response does not
attempt to counter this objection. Furthermore, the parallel Jeremias draws
between the exclusion of the subsequent baptism of the unbelieving spouse and
the prior baptism of the children is not the most obvious one to draw. A true
parallel would be between the non-exclusion of the subsequent baptism of
both unbelieving spouse and children. We must remember that the
weight-bearing element in Paul’s argument is the holiness of the children which
is already self-evident in a way that does not hold for the holiness of
unbelieving spouses. (David F. Wright, “The Origins of Infant Baptism—Child’s
Believers’ Baptism?” in Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective: Collected
Studies [Studies in Christian History and Thought; Milton Keynes, U.K.:
Paternoster, 2007], 14-15, 16, italics in original)
Benjamin Keach (Baptist) writing in 1869 vs. paedobaptists:
Object.
From whence ‘tis asserted, That the Children of Believers are hoy with a
Federal or Covenantal Holiness and therefore to be baptized.
Answ.
To this we answer, That the same sort of Holiness which is ascribed to the
Children, is to be understood in reference to the unbelieving Husband, or the unbelieving
Wife, who are both said to be sanctified by their respective Yoke-fellows;
which cannot be meant of a federal or a Covenant-holiness, but that which is
matrimonial: For if we must understand it of a Covenant-holiness, then it will
follow, that the unbelieving Wife, or unbelieving Husband may, upon the same
ground lay claim to Baptism as well as their Children, which yet your selves
will not grant. Besides, it is evident from the words themselves, in which the
Term Husband and Wife are twice used, which shews, that the
Holiness is from the conjugal Relation, and cannot be meant of any other than
Legitimation. And the term Unbeliever is also twice used, and said to be
Sanctified, which can have no other sence but this, that the unbelieving Yoke-fellow
is sanctified, or made meet in respect of conjugal use, to his or her Yoke-fellow:
And so tough the one be an Unbeliever, yet they might comfortably enough live
together in lawful Wedlock. See our late Annotators; I rather think (say
they) it signifies brought into a State that the Believer, without Offence
to the Law of God, may continue in a married Estate with such a Yoke-fellow; for
else, saith the Apostle, your Children were unclean, that is, would be
accounted illegitimate. But now this being determined, that he Husband is thus
sanctified to the wife, and the Wife to the Husband, though the one be an Unbeliever,
hence it follows, that your Children are holy; that is, lawfully
begotten, which is the only sense opposite to the Determination, ver.
12, 13. It was, ‘tis plain, about this matter those Saints at Corinth
wrote to the Apostle, and therefore according to the scope of the place it
cannot intend any thing else. And as for the use of the word Holy for
Legitimate, that it is in this sense used else-where in the Scripture is
evident from Mal. 2.15, where a Seed of God, or a Godly Seed, can be
understood in no other sense than that of a lawful Seed, in opposition to those
born by Polygamy.
Neither out any man to infer Federal
Holiness to be intended here, unless he can prove form some other Text in
the New Testament any such Holiness to be in Children, i.e. because Parents
are Believers are in the Covenant of Grace, their natural Seed must therefore
be so esteemed, and have the like Right to Gospel-Baptism, as the Children under
the Law had to Circumcision, which is no where to be found in all the New
Testament, but the quite contrary, as has been proved; and therefore this
Interpretation ought not to be admitted, but utterly to be rejected in regard
to what the Apostle Peter asserts.
How false and ridiculous therefore
is that which Mr. Smythies hath lately affirmed: Whensoever, saith
he, God enters into Covenant with the Parent, he enters into Covenant with
the Children of that Parent; that Is, the Children were included in the covenant,
and the Blessings of that Covenant belonged to the Children as well as to the
Parent. They that will build their Father upon such kind of Men deserve to
be deceived, who speak what they please, and prove nothing; as if this was so
because Mr. Smythies says it. I must charge it upon him as false
Doctrine, (1.) As being quote contrary to the Nature of the Gospel-Dispensation
and Constitution of the New Testament Church, wherein the Fleshy Seed are
rejected and cast out in respect of Church Privileges and Ordinances. (2.) What
is this but to intail Grace to Nature, and Regeneration to Generation? in
opposition to what our Saviour saith, John 3.3 and Paul, Ephes.
2.1,2. (3.) It also contradicts all Mens Experience. How palpable is it that
Godly men have wicked Children now adays as well as in former times? What,
wicked Children, and yet in the Covenant of grace? Or, were they in it, and are
they now fallen out of it? What a Covenant then do you make that sure and
everlasting Covenant of Grace to be?
Besides, we have many learned Men
and Commentators of our Mind upon this Text, as Mr. Danvers observes and
quotes them.
Austin,
saith, it is to hold without doubting, whatsoever that Sanctification was, it
was not of Power to make Christians and remit Sins.
Ambrose
upon this place, saith, the Children are Ambrose, holy because they are born of
lawful Marriage.
Melancthon
in his Commentary upon this same Text saith thus, “Therefore Paul answers,
that “their Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike Opinions of
God; if the impious Person does not cast away the other; and for comfort he
adds as a Reason, The unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife.
Meat is sanctified; for that which is holy in use, that is, it is granted to
Believers from God; so here he speaks of the use of Marriage to be holy, to be
granted of God. Things prohibited under the Law, as Swines Flesh, and a Woman
in her Pollution, were called unclean. The connexion of this, if the use of
Marriage should not please God, your Children would be Bastards, and so
unclean: But your Children are not Bastards, therefore the use of Marriage
pleaseth God: And how Bastards were unclean in a peculiar manner the Law shews,
Deut. 23.
Camerarius
in his Commentary upon this place also faith, (for the unbelieving Husband hath
been sanctified, an unusual change of the Tense, that is) “sanctified in the
lawful use of Marriage; for without this, saith he, it would be that their Children
should be unclean, than is, infamous and
not legitimate, who so are holy, that is, during the Marriage are
without all blot of Ignominy.
Erasmus
saith likewise, “Infants born of such Parents as one being a Christian, the
other not, are holy legitimately; for the Conversion on either Wife or Husband
doth not dissolve the Marriage which was made when both were Unbelievers. . . .
But, after all, should it be
allowed that the Holiness in this Text is indeed to be taken for a Federal or
Covenant-Holiness, yet we cannot therefore grant that this is a sufficient
Proof for Infant-Baptism; for let the Holiness be what it will, whether Moral,
Federal, or Matrimonial, neither of these is any where assigned to
be a ground of baptizing Infants; the Institution, Commission, and Practice of
the Apostolical Church being that alone that can warrant the same: ‘This God’s
Word only, not Mens Reason, conceited Grounds and Inferences, that can justify a
Practice, or make a Gospel Ordinance; if all therefore was granted which you
affirm of the Covenant made with Abraham or Circumcision and Federal
Holiness, yet Infant Baptism is gone, unless you can prove God hath from
this ground commanded you to baptize your Children, or that they were for this
Reason admitted to Baptism in the Apostles Time (for all your Arguments from
thence prove as strongly, that your Infants may partake of the Lord’s Supper, &c.)
But that any thing less than a Profession of Faith and Repentance is or can
be a sufficient ground for baptizing any Person, young or old, we do deny, fith
the New Testament is the only Rule or perfect Copy, by the Authority of which
we ought to act and perform all Duties of instituted Worship, and administer Sacraments,
&c. which are mere positive Precepts, and depend only upon the Will and
Pleasure of the Law-maker. So much to this pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism. (Benjamin
Keach, Gold Refined, or, Baptism in its Primitive Purity: Proving baptism in
water an holy institution of Jesus Christ, and to continue in the church to the
end of the world [London: Nathaniel Crouch, 1689], 137-40, 141)
Pelagius on 1 Cor 7:14
7:14 “For
the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband" [Latin: Sanctifactus
est enim uir infidelis in exore fideli, et sanctifacata est mulier infidelis
per maritum fidelem]. He relates an example because it often happens that a man
is gained by means of the wife. And this is why blessed Peter says, “That if
any believe not the word, they may be gained without a word, by the wife’s
manner of life [1 Pet. 3:1], that is, when they see their wives changed for the
better, they know that nothing but the law of God could change inveterate
habits like this. “Otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are
holy.” If it were not so, [as] I say, your children would remain unclean still;
for it had often happened that the children followed the parent who was a
believer; that by the hope he wished to be believed, the other was able to be
saved, as much by the example of the children as of the spouse. (Pelagius, Commentaries
on the Thirteen Epistles of Paul with the Libellus Fidei [trans. Thomas P.
Scheck; Ancient Christian Writers 76; New York: The Newman Press, 2022], 145;
first comment in square brackets added for clarification)
John
Calvin (Magisterial Reformer):
14.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified. He obviates an objection, which might occasion anxiety to believers.
The relationship of marriage is singularly close, so that the wife is the half
of the man—so that they two are one flesh —(1Co 6:16)
—so that the husband is the head of the wife; (Eph
5:23); and she is her husband’s partner in everything; hence it seems
impossible that a believing husband should live with an ungodly wife, or the
converse of this, without being polluted by so close a connection. Paul
therefore declares here, that marriage is, nevertheless, sacred and pure, and
that we must not be apprehensive of contagion, as if the wife would contaminate
the husband. Let us, however, bear in mind, that he speaks here not of
contracting marriages, but of maintaining those that have been already
contracted; for where the matter under consideration is, whether one should
marry an unbelieving wife, or whether one should marry an unbelieving husband,
then that exhortation is in point—
Be not yoked with unbelievers, for there is no agreement between Christ
and Belial.
(2Co 6:14).
But
he that is already bound has no longer liberty of choice; hence the advice
given is different.
While
this sanctification is taken in various senses, I refer it simply to
marriage, in this sense—It might seem (judging from appearance) as if a
believing wife contracted infection from an unbelieving husband, so as to make
the connection unlawful; but it is otherwise, for the piety of the one has more
effect in sanctifying marriage than the impiety of the other in polluting it.
Hence a believer may, with a pure conscience, live with an unbeliever, for in
respect of the use and intercourse of the marriage bed, and of life generally,
he is sanctified, so as not to infect the believing party with his impurity.
Meanwhile this sanctification is of no benefit to the unbelieving party;
it only serves thus far, that the believing party is not contaminated by
intercourse with him, and marriage itself is not profaned.
But
from this a question arises—"If the faith of a husband or wife who is a
Christian sanctifies marriage, it follows that all marriages of ungodly
persons are impure, and differ nothing from fornication." I answer, that to
the ungodly all things are impure, (Ti 1:15), because they pollute by their impurity
even the best and choicest of God’s creatures. Hence it is that they pollute
marriage itself, because they do not acknowledge God as its Author, and
therefore they are not capable of true sanctification, and by an evil
conscience abuse marriage. It is a mistake, however, to conclude from this that
it differs nothing from fornication; for, however impure it is to them, it is nevertheless
pure in itself, inasmuch as it is appointed by God, serves to maintain decency
among men, and restrains irregular desires; and hence it is for these purposes
approved by God, like other parts of political order. We must always,
therefore, distinguish between the nature of a thing and the abuse of it.
Else
were your children. It is an argument taken from
the effect—"If your marriage were impure, then the children that are the
fruit of it would be impure; but they are holy; hence the marriage also
is holy. As, then, the ungodliness of one of the parents does not hinder the
children that are born from being holy, so neither does it hinder the marriage
from being pure." Some grammarians explain this passage as referring to a
civil sanctity, in respect of the children being reckoned legitimate, but in
this respect the condition of unbelievers is in no degree worse. That
exposition, therefore, cannot stand. Besides, it is certain that Paul designed
here to remove scruples of conscience, lest any one should think (as I have
said) that he had contracted defilement. The passage, then, is a remarkable
one, and drawn from the depths of theology; for it teaches, that the children
of the pious are set apart from others by a sort of exclusive privilege, so as
to be reckoned holy in the Church.
But
how will this statement correspond with what he teaches elsewhere—that we
are all by nature children of wrath; (Eph 2:3);
or with the statement of David —Behold I was conceived in sin, etc. (Ps 51:5). I answer, that there is a universal propagation
of sin and damnation throughout the seed of Adam, and all, therefore, to a man,
are included in this curse, whether they are the offspring of believers or of
the ungodly; for it is not as regenerated by the Spirit, that believers beget
children after the flesh. The natural condition, therefore, of all is alike, so
that they are liable equally to sin and to eternal death. As to the Apostle’s
assigning here a peculiar privilege to the children of believers, this flows
from the blessing of the covenant, by the intervention of which the curse of
nature is removed; and those who were by nature unholy are consecrated to God
by grace. Hence Paul argues, in his Epistle to the Romans, (Ro
11:16), that the whole of Abraham’s posterity are holy, because God had
made a covenant of life with him—If the root be holy, says he, then
the branches are holy also. And God calls all that were descended from
Israel his sons’ now that the partition is broken down, the same covenant of
salvation that was entered into with the seed of Abraham is communicated to us.
But if the children of believers are exempted from the common lot of mankind,
so as to be set apart to the Lord, why should we keep them back from the sign?
If the Lord admits them into the Church by his word, why should we refuse them
the sign? In what respects the offspring of the pious are holy, while many of
them become degenerate, you will find explained in Ro
10:1-11:21 the Epistle to the Romans; and I have handled this point
there.
George Leo Haydock (Catholic) on 1 Cor 7:14
Ver. 14–16. Is
sanctified. The meaning is not that the faith of the husband, or the wife
is of itself sufficient to put the unbelieving party, or their children, in the
state of grace and salvation: but that it is very often an occasion of their
sanctification, by bringing them to the true faith. Ch.—Sanctification which
has different significations, cannot here signify that an infidel is truly and
properly sanctified, or justified, by being married to a faithful believer;
therefore we can only understand an improper sanctification, so that such an
infidel, though not yet converted, need not be looked upon as unclean, but in
the dispositions of being converted, especially living peaceably together, and
consenting that their children be
baptized, by which they are truly sanctified.—How knowest thou, O wife? &c. These
words seem to give the reason, why they may part, when they cannot live
peaceably, and when there is little prospect that the party that is an infidel
will be converted. (George Leo Haydock, Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary [New
York: Edward Dunigan and Brother, 1859])
Robert Sungenis (Catholic) on 1 Cor 7:14
“sanctified”: Gr: ηγιασται,
perfect passive, denoting a state that began with the baptism of the believing
spouse and continues until the present time. A question may have arisen among
the Corinthians as to whether the Christian spouse in such marriages would be
contaminated in some way. Not only is the supposition not true, but Paul states
the reverse – the Christian spouse put the unbelieving spouse in a holy
relationship with God. Ηγιασται is placed forward in the sentence to emphasize
this startling piece of information. The use of does not mean that the
unbelieving spouse is sanctified in the salvific sense, but in the practical
sense, that is, the unbelieving spouse will enjoy the blessings of a sanctified
marriage that God bestows upon it for the sake of the believer. (Robert A.
Sungenis, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Catholic Apologetics
Study Bible 5; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing,
Inc., 2009], 53 n 139)
With all the confusion, past and present, about the meaning of this text, especially as it has often been used to support infant baptism (which itself has other theological ramifications), Latter-day Saints should be thankful we having a living source of authority that can provide a definitive answer to these issues. Of course, does not mean we are right, nor unique to us (think of Catholics and their Magisterium), but definitely a major advantage we have over Protestants.
On Sola Scriptura, see:
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura